



^o-nK. V 




'TAq^ 



^°^ 




'-of 













'>0^ 












•••' 











^^^^^' 

.♦^-v. 









i^^ 



^9^ 










LEGAL STATUS 



PAT KNTS, 



THos. b:^hall, 

w 

Patent Attorney, 

Brainard'Huildirxgj Nartli Sida of Public SquarB; 



ivt. 



^ , ■ CLEVELAND, or s;:vCO^v»^io,H7!*"A^X 



a: :^: 



A. W. FAIRBANKS, PRINTER, 72 FRANKFORT STREET. 

1882. 






Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1882, by 

Thos. B. Hall, 
In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 



-pQ 



% 



o 



6- 



THE VALID SCOPE OF CLAIMS. 



Our Patent Office has the most systematic method as yet 
adopted in any country, for examining applications for pa- 
tents. The corps of a hundred Examiners is practically a 
body of judges. Of legal culture, and respectively trained 
in scientific specialties, they subject their cases to a rigid 
ordeal. 

An Examiner must familiarize himself with all the in- 
ventions that have been made in his class. Their great 
number and complexity have rendered the study of them 
a profession to be acquired by years of labor. An Ex- 
aminer's decisions involve nice questions of law, of science, 
and of mechanics. The more recondite principles upon 
which depend the practical success of processes and ma- 
chinery, must be familiar to him. Large amounts of 
property often depend directly or indirectly upon his ac- 
tion. The ability and acquirements necessary to the proper 
discharge of his duties, must be of a high order — scarcely 
less than those we expect in a judge of the higher courts 
of law. 

Report ^of the^Commissioner of 

Patents for the year 1868. 



4 

In acting on a case, the Examiner to whom it is assigned, 
institutes an exhaustive search for reasons on which a rejec- 
tion thereof should be based. These reasons are submitted 
to the Principal Examiner for his consideration; and the 
decision rejecting any or all the claims, is indorsed by him. 

About fifteen per cent, of completed applications are, after 
examination, allowed without objection. In most appli- 
cations, there occur one, two, or more rejections. 

Report of the Commissioner of 
Patents for the year 1878. 

Argument in replication to the rejection may be filed by 
applicants' Attorney; and- it rests with the Principal Exam- 
iner to sit as a judicial ofiicer on the merits of the case. The 
usual procedure in an able prosecution of a case is substan- 
tially a.s follows: The claims, or at least the strong ones, are 
rejected on the first examination of the office. The cause of 
this is two-fold. First, the Attorney is inclined to claim a 
wide field for the invention, and throv>^s on the Examiner 
the burden of showing that it should be restricted to any 
less area: second, the Examiner by reason of his position, 
is inclined to narrow this view of the invention, and solves 
all doubts in favor of the public. He cites specific patents 
showing devices or methods which he holds to be of such 
character, as to prevent anchoring the invention to ground 
so secure as that which the claims lay hold on. The bur- 
den of proof is thus shifted, and it now devolves on the , 
Attorney to show that the claims are allowable, notwith- 
standing such previous devices or methods. He examines 
the ^ different reasons of rejection, axid' ascertains to what 



5 
extent they lawfully avail against the issuance of the 
claims. He amends the case in such particulars as he may 
find necessary; and as regards other points, he files a writ- 
ten argument, setting forth the differences between the ref- 
erences and the claimed invention. The advantage of such 
differences is explained ; and reasons in law for a favorable 
reconsideration are urged. This is usually the opening in a 
discusssion between the Examiner, on the one hand, to limit 
the breadth of the claims to his construction of the legal 
premises ; and the Attorney, on the other hand, to maintain 
a wide range of the claims, according to iiis understanding 
of court and office decisions in Hke previous cases. Addi- 
tional references and reasons of rejection are brought for- 
ward, by the Examiner, as he may find that the previous 
ones .do not avail in view of any amendment and argu- 
ment. While, in replication to each adverse decision, the 
Attorney files appropriate papers for a reconsideration and 
favorable decision. Shoidd the Princi]3al Examiner at any 
time during these proceedings, pass judgment that the 
amendment and argument last filed, do not clear the case 
from the grounds of rejection declared in the previous deci- 
sion, the matter can then be heard only by the Board of 
Appeals. One hearing before this tribunal is permitted: if 
adverse, the case can have a single hearing before the Com- 
missioner in person ; then, appeal lies to the Courts. But 
few applications, however, pass through such a procedure. 
It is the exception to a general rule, whenever appeal from 
the Principal Examiner becomes necessary. The argu- 
ments used on appeal, the arguments and amendments used 
before the Principal Examiner, the decisions of the latter, 
and of each appellate tribunal, are all filed for the informa 



tion of the office and the public ; as the practical value of 
the patent may in future call for an examination of its 
strength and validity. This file constitutes a mine of scien- 
tific facts and legal reasons, testifying to the depth of the 
patent. It is referred to by subsequent office Examiners, by 
parties desiring to license or purchase rights, by some seek- 
ing to evade the claims, and by others who may be notified 
of infringement, or involved in litigation with the patent. 
Hence in the prosecution of a case, the Patent Office requires 
all amendments and arguments to be presented in written 
or printed form, and filed under the office stamp; and no 
decision is rendered except in writing, and as part of the 
judicial record. Various causes may be assigned for the 
many patented claims, which on being submitted to court 
judgment, are held to cover less area of invention than^their 
owners thought. But the controlling factor in working out 
this result, is the adoption of inferior claims after the first 
one or Uvo office rejections. New arrays of references, and 
fresh series of objections, find strong lodgment; the contest 
for broad claim is given up, and such as insures immediate 
allowance of the case is substituted. Claims not wrought 
out through succe;.'sive heatings and haminorings, in the 
forge of a hot prosecution, are apt to prove weak. And it 
remains for Courts to protect the limited invention thus se- 
cured. 

Courts can not make a new specification, with claims 
stronger or broader than the patent presents. 

Sickles vs. Gloucester Mfg. Co. 

IL' S. Court Decisions. 



Each one of the several claims of a patent covers in law, 
as separate and independent an invention as if it constituted 
a patent by itself. For instance, a stove may possibly have 
half a dozen peculiarities of structure, each of which is 
claimed in the patent thereon. The latter would, in such 
instance, protect six different forms of stoves, 'if, how- 
ever, the patent had issued with but one claim on this 
stove, other parties could make five different kinds of 
stoves, each kind posessing one or more peculiarities of the 
stove shown and described in the patent ; and yet not one 
of the five kinds, would bean infringement of the patent. 
It avails notliing to set forth a feature in the stmcture of an 
article, unless such feature is distinctively claimed. 

The scope of letters patent is hmited to the invention 
covered by the claim, and can not be enlarged by the 
language used in other parts of the specification!^ An 
inventor can not go beyond what he has claimed, and 
insist that his patent covers something not claimed, merely 
because ii is to be found in the drawings and the descrip- 
tive part of the specification. 

Lehigh Valley E, E. Co. et al vs. Mellon et ah 
Supreme Court of the United States, 1881. 

• As any question of Infringement arises, the owner of the 
patent places the latter, and a copy of the device which is 
thought to trespass on his rights, ui the hands of an at- 
torney. So too, the manufacturer notified to desist making 
or using a certain device, submits the latter and a copy of 
the threatening patent, to his attorney. In either instance, 



Counsel puts the claims in question to a crucial test. Every 
patent on this class of devices granted previously to the 
patent in hand, is subjected to careful scrutiny. And in 
proportion to the amount of labor warranted in the prem- 
ises, search is extended in other quarters. It is not expected 
to find a duplicate of the patented invention whicli has been 
submitted; but to reveal the advance made by its author, in 
the line of mechanical progress. 

To determine the extent of the invention patented in a 
claim, the state of the art at the time when the invention 
was made, must be considered. 

Garneau vs. Dozier, Weyl & Co. 
Supreme Court of the United States, 1880. 

Judgment will then decide, what' elements recited in the 
respective claims constitute vital parts of the principle of 
the invention ; and what elements, are only the incidents of 
this principle. The law of mechanical equivalents will de-^ 
termine whether certain forms of mechanism may be used 
in substitution for the particular forms set forth in the 
patent, and leave the latter as binding as though such 
change had not been made. Both of these considerations 
will be held in connection with the special language of tliQ. 
claims, and in connection with the state of the art prior to 
the patented invention. 

A patentee is entitled to suppress every other mechanism 
of substahtially the same parts, to produce substantially 



9 
the same results : and he is entitled to mechanical equiva- 
lents, witliin the judicial construction of that term. 

Gould vs. Rees. 
Supreme Court of the United States, 1872. 

That two machines produce the same effect, wall not justify 

the assumption that they are substantially the same, or 

that the mechanism of the one is an equivalent of the 

othej. Every man has a right to evade a previous patent, 

provided he does not invade the rights established by its 

claims. 

. Burr vs. Duryee. 

Supreme Court of the United States, 1863. 

Each patentee is liable to all prior patentees to the ex- 
tent to which he adopts their principles of invention, in 
making a device which embodies his patented improvement 
Colli gnon et al. vs. Hayes. 
Warth vs. Browning et al. 

U. S. Court Decisions. 



THE LAW OF EEISSUE. 



The powers of the Patent Office are derived from certam 
statutes. It is well known, however, that until the liighest 
court has construed the terms of any statute, the meaning 
thereof is not definite. Hence the Patent Office, in attempt- 
ing to carry out the provisions of the statute on which the 
reissue of patents is based, was obliged to adopt its own con- 
straction thereof. Then, as reissued patents find their way 
up through the lower tribimals to the Supreme Court, the lat- 
ter confirms or condemns this office construction. In such 
points as the court niay hold that the office interpreted the 
statute aright, their decisions do not require any change to 
be made in the office practice. But in such points as they 
may hold the office to have erred, the practice of the latter 
will be changed to conform to the view^s of the court. And 
thus, through time, the office practice becomes moulded and 
established by the decisions of that tribunal wliich deter- 
mines law. The construction originally placed by the Patent 
Office on the reissue statute, w-as as follows: If an original 
patent could, at the time of its grant, have legally issued 
with broader claim than it in fact did, it might be surren- 
dered, and a reissue would be granted having such broad 
claim. Any feature of invention shown in model or draw- 
ings of the original patent, or described in its specification. 



II 

and which was either omitted from the claims thereof, or 
inadequately protected thereby, could be covered in the 
reissue. Hence the latter could claim an invention as per- 
fectly as the original patent could have done. had_it been 
properly taken. It was immaterial if the claim sought for 
in the reissue application, had been sought for, and rejected 
by the office during the prosecution of the application for the 
original patent. It was likewise a matter of no consequence, 
how long the original patent had been in existence prior to 
the application for .its reissue. The majority of patented 
inventions on which suits were to be brougiit, were in ac- 
cordance with this practice, reissued in order to have the 
claims cover their broad principles. The Supreme Court 
have, however, lately had several of these reissues in hear- 
ing; and in passing judgment thereon, they have laid down 
certain principles of construction which now prevail in in- 
terpretiiig the statute. In declaring the invalidity of the 
particular reissues before tliem, they condemn the previous 
practice of the Patent Office as regards two points. The 
ffi'st point relates to a reissue being granted with a claim 
substantially" the same as was presented in the application 
for the original patent, and which was erased therefrom when 
' the office rejected it. The court holds that it is questionable 
whether, under such circumstances, a reissue can be sus- 
tained.. 

If in any case \v'here an applicant for a patent, in order to 
obtain the issue thereof, disclaims a particular invention, 
or acquiesces in the rejection of a claim thereto, a reissue 
containing such claim is valid, (which we greatly doubt,) 
it certainlv cannot be sustained in this case. The allow- 



ance of claims once formally abandoned by the applicant 
in order to get his patent through, is the occasion of im- 
mense frauds against the public. Under such circum- 
stances, the omission of the claim can in no just seAse be 
regarded as a matter of inadvertence or mistake; and even 
if it were such, the applicant should seem to be estopped 
from setting it up on an application for a reissue. 
Leggett et al. Tix. Axery et al 
Supreme Court of the United States, October Term, 1879. 

Indeed, we iiave heretofore expressed doubts whether re- 
issued letters patent can be sustained in any case, where, 
they contain claims that were sought for in the apphca- 
tion for the original patent ; and which were rejected by 
the office, and the patentee consented to such rejection in 
order to obtain his letters patent. 

Goodyear Dental Vidcanite Co. vs. Davis. 
Supreme Court of the United States, 1880. 

The second point of error in the former office practice, 
relates to granting a re-issue without consideration of the 
length of time which the original patent has run, before 
the apphcation for its reissue is ffied. This point was first 
passed upon by the Supreme Court in January, 1882 ; and 
the reissue before them was declared invalid, because the 
circumstances of the case did not justify the length of time 
which elapsed between the grant of the original patent and 
the application for its re-issue. The doctrine was set forth, 
that such parts of a projess or machine as are not covered 
by the claim of tlie original patent, are presumptively dedi- 



13 

cated to the public. But that such presumption may be 
rebutted, and a re-issue be granted to remedy the defects of 
claim in the original patent : provided the owner of the lat- 
ter proves that said defects resulted from unavoidable 
causes, and that as soon as these defects were discovered, 
he made immediate application for a reissue. 

If a patentee who has no corrections to suggest in his speci- 
fication, excej)t to make his claim broader and more com- 
prehensive, uses due diligence in returning to the Patent 
Office, and shows how such mistake occurred, his appli- 
cation for re-issue may be entertained. But it must be 
remembered, that the claim of a specific device or com- 
bination, and an omission to claim other devices or com- 
binations of the original patent, are in law a, dedication to 
the public of that which is not claimed. And the legal 
effect of the said patent can not be revoked, unless the 
patentee surrenders it, and proves that the specification 
was so framed by real inadvertence, accident or mistake, 
and this should be done with all due diligence and speed. 

Miller & Co. vs. The Bridgeport Brass Co. 
Supreme Court of the United States, Jan^y dth, 1882. 

When the original patent does not contain certain broad 
claims, the patentee, if he is the inventor of such subject 
matter, should use due diligence in surrendering the 
patent and having the error corrected. The right to a reis- 
sue was abandoned and lost by unreasonable delay. 

Matthews et al. vs. The Boston Machine Co. et al. 
Supreme Court of the United States, March 27th, 1882. 



FOREIGN SYSTEMS. 



The countries in which American Invention usually seeks 
protection other than at home, are Canada, Great Britain. 
France, Belgium, and Germany. Their respective patent 
systems differ widely from each other, and also^from ours. 
None of them, excepting that of Canada, have provision for 
curing a defective patent. All make the lives of their 
patents dependent on certain conditions, to which'patents 
in our country are not subject. If a ^foreign ''patent is 
granted, previously to the United States patent on the same 
invention, our law then makes its patent dependent on the 
life of said foreign patent. 

Every patent granted for an invention which has been 
previously patented in a foreign country, shall be so lim- 
ited as to expire at the same time with the foreign patent. 
Section 4887 U. S. Revised Statutes. 

Hence, if the foreign application is filed at a date which 
causes its patent to have legal existence, prior to the legal 
existence of the United States patent : the duration of the 
latter is subject to abridgment, notwithstanding the length 
of term set forth in its grant. 



15 
The term or duration of a patent must be determined by 
the statute and all the facts of the case, and not merely 
by the terms of the grant in the patent. 

Henry vs. The Providence Tool Co. 

Reissner vs. Sharp. 

De Florez et. al. vs. Raynolds el. al. 

U. 8. Court Decisions 1878, 79, '80. 

It so happened that in each of these cases, the application 
for the United States patent had been filed at a date subse- 
quent to the grant of the foreign patent. But in 1880, our 
Patent Office ruled as to the term for which it should grant 
a patent, if the application is filed at a date prior to the 
date of the foreign patent, though the patent itself does not 
bear date till subsequent to the date of the foreign patent. 

A foreign patent granted after the patentee files his Ameri- 
can application, but before he obtains his patent, does not 
limit the term of the American patent. 

Exparte Mann. 
Commissioners Decisions 1880. 

But recently, a patent granted in accordance with such 
doctrine came before a court, and the ruling of the Patent 
Office was disapproved. In deciding against the patent, 
the court held that if the foreign patent bore date prior to 
the date of the United States patent, the latter, even though 
its application was first filed, expired at the same time that 
such foreign patent expired. 

Bat the counsel for the complainant contends that th© pres- 
ent case does not fall within the limitation of the statute, 



because the application of the United States patent was 
filed antecedent to the application for, or the grant of the 
Canadian patent. We are at a loss to understand what 
the time of filing the apphcation, has to do with the mat- 
ter. 

Bate Refrigerating Co. vs. Gillett 

JJ. S. Court Decisions, 1882. 

The distinctive Laws of each Foreign System, governing the 
dating of a patent, providing conditions for its duration, and 
declaring grounds for the forfeiture of its grant, are herein- 
after set forth. Great Britain, France and Belgium do not 
examine the merits of an alleged invention, but each issues 
a patent according to the form which the application papers 
present. Question as regards the right of a party to the 
claims thus patented, is wholly reserved for the courts to set- 
tle, as business developments may throw conflicting interests 
into litigation. The alleged invention may have been previ- 
ously patented in the same country; may have been public 
property therein; or for other reason, inay present matter 
which can only result in an inoperative grant : but a patent 
would issue as if of legal force. The preparation of an appli- 
cation under such circumstances, calls for trained care. The 
hazard being, that the resulting patent may have one oi- 
more vulnerable points, in view of which, Counsel will ad^-ise 
manufacturers that it is invalid, and a Court finally sustains 
such opinion. Another feature in the respective systems of 
Great Britain, France and Belgium is, that an application 
may be skillfully prepared, so that a single sound patent 
will cover subject matter which, according to the systems 
of Germany, Canada and our country, would necessitate 



17 
expense of two or more independent patents. Canadian 
papers are executed by the applicant. The other countries re- 
quire only a power of attorney; except Great Britain, which 
does not call for any authorization from the inventor. Mod- 
els are not required in any instances, excepting in German 
applications on firearms, and in all Canadian applications. In 
the latter, however, the model need not be filed, if so desired, 
until the case has been allowed. Certain detail matter of 
the several systems is as follows: 

CANADA. 

Examination of applications, and restriction of claims pre- 
vails. The inventor must not have consented to public use 
or sale of his invention in Canada, for a period longer than 
one year previous to his application for patent therein. If 
the invention is first patented in another country, any party 
who previously to the Canadian application, commences to 
manufacture the invention in Canada, may continue to 
manufacture and sell the same, notwithstanding the subse- 
quent issue of the Canadian patent. But a valid patent 
cannot be granted, if the invention has been patented in 
another country for more than one year previous to date of 
application for Canadian patent. A patent expires with the 
expiration of any foreign patent on the same invention. 
Certain statutes recite that a patent will be forfeited: 

First, if the Patentee should not within two years from 
date of patent, manufacture the invention in Canada ; 
and afterwards, continuously in such manner that any 
person desiring to use it, may obtain or have it made for 
him at a reasonable price: Second, if after the expiration 



of twelve months from date of patent, the Patentee should 
import the patented article into Canada. But if the 
Patentee has been unable to manufacture the invention 
within the two years, he may within tliree months prior 
to the expiration of that period, show cause for and 
obtain an extension (usually of one year) within which to 
commence manufacturing. And the Patentee may, with- 
• in three months prior to the expiration of the twelve 
months referred to in the second ground of forfeiture, 
show cause for and obtain an extension of an additional 
twelve months, during whicli he may import the patented 
article into Canada. 

S'rJioii^^, Sub-.'^ecUon.s 2 and 8, Act of 1S72. 

A test case brought l^efore the highest tribunal, has inter- 
preted these statutes. In regard to the first ground of 
forfeiture, the judical construction is that the patentee 
must within two years from date of patent (or within the 
extension of this period), be willing to manufacture the 
patented article in Canada for a.ny person, or to license the 
latter to so manufacture, provided he makes a fair business 
offer. 

Therefore, tiie real meaning of the law is that the patentee 
must be ready, either to furnish the article himself, or to 
license the right of using on reasonable terms, to any per- 
son desiring to use it. But again, that desire on the part 
of such a person is not intended to mean a mere operation 
or motion of the mind or of the tongue ; but in effect, a 



I 



19 

bonafide serious and substantial proposal, the offer of a 
fair bargain accompanied with payment. As long as the 
patentee has been in a position to hear and acquiesce in 
such demand, and has not refused such a fair bargain 
proposed to him, he has not forfeited his rights. 

Barter vs. S'nifk 
Pttttnt Test Cd-^e, l^^TT. 



In regard to the second ground of forfeiture, the judical 
construction is that the patentee must not, after twelve 
months from date of X->atent (or after the extension of this 
period), import the patented article into Canada to such an 
extent as to injure Canadian industry. 

It is clear that the patentee's importation did not cause any 
appreciable injury to Canadian industry, but had for its 
object to bring the merits of the patent before the Cana- 
dian public ; the conclusion therefore, is that he did not 
forfeit his patent, 

Barter vs Smith. 
Patent Tent Ca><e, 1877. 

GREAT BRITAIN. 

The patented invention must not liave been pubhcly 
known within her realm, at the time of the application. 
Legal title to a patent, provided the foregoing requirement 
is fulfilled, may vest in any person who first made applica- 
tion ; it being imm.aterial whether such person was or Tvas 
not the owner of the invention. There are two modes of 
application. One is to secure at the outset, the complete 



20 

patent. The other is to obtain at first a provisional patent, 
which extends for six months : and before expiration of 
that term, supplement the procedure by taking out the 
complete patent. This latter course, aside from the divis- 
ion of fees, permits applicant to introduce in the final 
papers, any new forms of his invention not contemplated 
when he filed the first papers. Recent decisions liowever, 
hold that when two applicants are contesting for a patent 
on the same invention, the one who first pays in the com- 
plete fees, so as to get the earliest date of the great seal, be- 
comes the patentee, even though his competitor may have 
first applied for the patent. The Patent Office advertises 
each application for twenty-one days, and then grants a 
hearing to those who may show cause for refusing the 
grant of the patent. Applicant's Attorney has a hearing in 
rebuttal to such cause. The grant covers a term of four- 
teen years ; but if the invention had previously been pa- 
tented in another country, the British patent expires with 
the expiration of such other patent. A tax of fifty pounds 
is due before the termination of the third year; and a sec- 
ond tax of one hundred pounds is due before the termina- 
tion of the seventh year. There is no requirement as to 
working the invention. The provisional patent dates back 
to, and has legal existence from the day that its application 
was filed. The same rule applies to the complete patent. 

FRANCE. 

Courts will not consider a patent as valid, if previously 
to the application, publicity has been given to the inven- 
tion. Provision is made for cases in which inventions have 
first been patented in other countries, as follows: 



21 

The author of an invention or discovery already patented 

abroad, may obtain a patent in France ; but the duration 

of such patent cannot exceed that of the patents previ- 

iously obtained abroad. 

Article 29, Act of 1844. 

Certain statutes recite that a patentee will forfeit his 
grant : 

If he shall not have worked the invention in France within 
two years from the date of the signature, or if he shall 
suspend his operations for two consecutive years, unless 
he can show cause for such inactivity. Also, if he shall 
import into France, articles manufactured in foreign 
countries, siinilar to those guaranteed by his patent. 

Article 32, Act of 1844. 

As regards the first of the above grounds of forfeiture, 
French Jurisprudence construes it as follows: A patentee 
must not after two years from date of patent, remain in 
willing inactivity; but he must endeavor to introduce the 
invention into practical use in France. 

The tribunals will appreciate according to circumstances, if 
the reasons of not working are sufficiently justifiable. 
Renouard — Traite des Brevets d^Invention, p. 243. 

The spirit of the law is therefore clear. It intends to punish 
only voluntary, premeditated, and calculated inactivity. 
The law wishes to punish for inaction, only the one who 
has willingly remained idle. 

BMarride — Vol. 1. p. 450. 



22 

As regards the other ground of forfeiture, authorities 
construe it, that the patentee must not import the patented 
article into France to such an extent as to injure the in- 
dustry of tiie country. 

Judicial authority refuses to apply the penalty of forfeit- 
ure, when the importation, although not ^authorized, ^is 
not in it^ nature susceptible of damaging national labor. 

Bedarride — Vol I., p., 455. 

Court of Douid. l^U). 
Co'i.ri of Paris. 1^5;~). 

The term of the patent is fifteen years. A tax of about 
t^venty dollars is due for the second, and each succeeding 
year. The patent dates back to, and has legal existence from 
the day that its application was filed. 

BELGIUM. 

A publication of the indention in her country, previous to 
the application, prevents the issue of a valid patent. But 
if the invention is previously patented in another country, 
and this patent reaches Belgium before ap]3lication is there 
made, it is excepted from the above rule. The patented in- 
vention must be worked in Belgium, witliin one year (or an 
extension thereof) from the date that it is worked else- 
where ; such working must not at any time thereafter 
cease for an entire year, if during that time the invention 
is being worked elsewhere, unless the possessor of the 
patent shall be able to justify the motives of his inaction. 
The patent term covers twenty years ; but it expires with 



23 

the expiration of any patent on the same invention, pre- 
viously granted in another country. A tax of nearly four 
dollars is due the second year; and each succeeding year, 
this tax increases by nearly two dollars. The patent dates 
back to, and has legal existence from the day that its appli- 
cation was filed. 

GERMANY. 

Within the last few years, the German office have adopted 
a system of rigorous examination. For two months f oIIoav- 
ing each application, the office invites the public to show 
cause why a patent should not issue. Applicant's Attorney 
has a hearing in rebuttal to such cause. The invention 
must not have been described in a printed publication, or 
have been brought into publicity in Germany, prior to the 
application. The patent can be repealed after the term of 
three years : first, if the patentee neglects to do everything 
requisite for the introduction of the invention in the coun- 
'try; second, if it appears requisite to the public interest 
that others should obtain license to use the invention, and 
the patentee refuses to grant such license, for a reasonable 
consideration and sufficient sectirity. The grant of the 
patent is for a term of fifteen years. Within the first three 
months of the second year, and of each succeeding year, a 
tax of about thirteen dollars is due. The patent dates back 
to, and has legal existence from the day after the day on 
which its application was filed. 



24 



Cleveland, O., December 31st, 1881. 

Thos. B. Hall, Esq. , has long been associated with us as 
an Attorney, and we always found him able and efficient in 
his profession. I take pleasure in recommending him. 
M. D. LEGGETT, 

{Formerly Commissioner of Patents ) 



25 



The fees for Infringement Opinions, and Reports as to valid 
scope of Patents, vary with the work required in the 
premises. 

An estimate ^will be given as each matter may be submitted. 



26 



Washington, D. C, February 9th, 1882. 

Mr. Thos. B. Hall, has been several years engaged in 
business as a Solicitor of Patents, and is personally known 
to ine. I believe him to be thoroughly capable, industrious 
and honest. 

ELLIS SPEAR, 

{Late Commisdoner of Patents. ) 



27 



COSTS. 

United States Letters Patent .$60 00 

Re-issue '' 60 00 

Design •• 25 00 

Caveat Filing 25 00 

" Trademark Registration 40 00 

" Label Registration 15 00 

The government and attorney fees are both included in 
the above. Prelinainary examination, drawings, and all 
cost, (excepting extra government fee in case of appeal.) 
are therein provided for. Should the extended character of 
any invention, however, necessitate a greater cost, an esti- 
mate thereof will be giv^en. 



28 



Washington, D. C, November 28th, 1882. 

I am pleased to mdorse Mr. Thos. B. Hall to parties desir- 
ing the services of a competent and thoroughly reliable 
Patent Attorney. During my connection with the Patent 
Office, I had full opportunity to ascertain Mr. Hall's fitness 
for the duties intrusted to him. A natural talent for me- 
chanics, combined with a legal training, enables him to 
render most accurate and valuable services. I am con- 
vinced that abundant success will crown his practice, 
wherever he may locate, on leaving this city. 
H. A. SEYMOUR, 

{Formerly Principal Examiner, 
United States Patent Office.) 



29 



COSTS. 

Canadian Patent $50 00 

British Provisional Patent 75 00 

British Complete Patent 150 00 

(after first taking the Provisional Patent.) 

British Complete Patent 225 00 

(without first taking a Provisional Patent.) 

French Patent , 75 00 

German Patent 75 00 

Belgium Patent 60 00 

The government and attorneys fees are both included in 
the above. Preliminary examination, drawings, and all 
cost, are therein provided for. Should the extended charac- 
ter of any invention, however, necessitate a greater cost, 
an estimate thereof will be given. The Foreign Associate 
Offices will aid in the prosecution of cases : but whenever 
amendments or arguments ^are required, they will be pre. 
pared here, and forwarded. 



30 



New York City. December 2d, 1882, 
Thos. B. Hall, Esq.. 

My Dear Sir: 

Your -years of experience in connection 
with some of tiie most intricate cases before the Patent 
Office, 3vour accurate comprehension of mechanical princi- 
ples, and your thorough knowledge of the law governing 
patents, justify me in saying your profession is that for 
which you possess unusually favorable qualifications. In 
leaving Washington, to engage in practice in a new locality, 
your well-knovvm energy, integrity, and standing in the 
profession, insure that abundant success wh_ich I predict 
for you. Yours very truly. 

WORTH OSGOOD. 

(Late Principal Examiner, 
Untied States Patent Office.) 



31 



The Associate Office at Washington will aid in the prose- 
cution of cases before the Patent Office: but will not prepare 
amendments or arguments, as the Writer prefers to draft 
all papers. 

The growth of the patent system in the last quarter of a 
century in this country, has reached a stage in its progress, 
where the variety and magnitude of the interests in- 
volved, require legal accurac}/ , precision, and care in the 
IDreparation of all the papers on which the patent is 
founded. 

Merrill vs. Yeomans et. al. 
Supreme Court of the United States, 1876. 

The statute requires copies of all patents as they issue, to 
be kept for free public inspection, among other designated 
leposifcories, in the United States Court at Cleveland, located 
on the Public Square. Ready reference can thus be had to 
.such patents as the Examiners may cite. The Patent Office 
'leeps on hand copies of ail patents, for disposal at ten cents 
ipiece; whenever the Apphcant may desu'e to have copies 
)f such patents as may be referred to in the Examiner's de- 
cisions, the Associate Office will be instructed to forward 
!;hem, at the same time with the decisions. The theory gov- 
erning the prosecution of each case, will be to personally 
-five ample time and thought to the questions which arise 
herein ; even to a greater degree, than is done by the office 
i^xaminer. 



32 

In order to thoroughly examine and decide the intricate 
questions which arise, the ablest and most experienced 
Examiners require sufficient time for mature consid- 
eration on each claim. 

Report of the Commisioner of 
Patents for the Year, 1880. 

The Patent Office does not now require models, except in 
special cases. Hence the model by which drawings are to 
be prepared m application for patent, may be roughly 
made, as the draftsman will add artistic appearance. In- 
stead of such model, sketches accurately representing the 
invention, will answer as well. 

THOS. B. HALL, 

Brainard Building, n^^^^x^T k^t^ n 

North ^mM of Public Square. i.le^ela>d, u. 



312 91 



Ao^ 







'• 'Tt, 




.^^%. \ 




• 1^ 



«^^ ^ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. ^ 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide ^ 



^^ ,-. 

<^ Treatment Date; Sept. 2003 



PreservationTechnologies 

v1 A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 'i 



1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 

Cranberry Township, PA 16066 j-^ 

(724)779-2111 ^'j 



1 



.<v * * * 



"^oi 












-^^^^ 



HECKMAN 

BINDERY INC. f§i 

^ JUN 91 




'^^<,^ 



N. MANCHESTER, 
INDIANA 46962 






^-^i^. 




\. "T^f:** \^^ 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




011246 494 3 



